I agree that the ministration was a part of the atonement process. Yet you also see texts that state atonement was made at the instant of sacrifice, for example:
"And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." Leviticus 4:26
This too is a work of the priest, not of the person who does the sacrifice. And I already quoted it. It comes after the sacrifice. Here is the text in context.
Lev 4:24 and shall lay his hand on the head of the goat and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD; it is a sin offering.
Lev 4:25 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering.
Lev 4:26 And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
The statement about atonement came after the ministration of the blood.
Both shedding and ministration were necessary, yes.
Very well, and both happened at the ascension.
But that is the whole package. You cannot have one without the other - forgiveness is provided the instant a substitute is slain: are we agreed? Ministration is symbolic of the transfer of sin-guilt away from the transgressor. This is most clearly illustrated in Leviticus 10:16-18, where the fact that one without the other is not possible:
I am not the one saying that one happens without the other. I am saying both happened. Both were said to have happened at the ascension.
"Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord." Leviticus 10:17
The death was an atonement. Bearing away was an atonement. The judgment was an atonement. All different phases of the Great Atonement.
Whether you view them as separate or not is a diversion from the real issue. A. Both are necessary, as you said. B. Both already happened, as Hebrews says.
What seems to be the issue is that you insist the Day of Atonement was not significantly different to the daily. Am I correct in saying this?
What I am saying is that the SACRIFICE of the Day of Atonement was the same sacrifice as all the others. And the ministering of the blood of that sacrifice was said to be done at the ascension.
The book of Hebrews spells out the fulfillment of the type of entering in by Jesus' blood. It does not spell out the scapegoat. Therefore I cannot be dogmatic about its meaning. But the portion dealing with the blood is already said to be fulfilled. There is no other time it COULD be fulfilled because there was one ministration of blood that went with the one sacrifice.
And it is that portion--the application of the blood-- that we assign to a later time. Hebrews explains that it was for the cleansing of sins. That part of the type is already fulfilled. And that is the part of the type that we have misconstrued to apply to the IJ.
We have said the type is about books. But there are no books in the type. But there is blood. And that is what Hebrews said was fulfilled, in Day of Atonement language. And it anchors it in past events.
Wait....there was no continual ministration of blood? Can you flesh this out a little?
Hebrews makes it clear that Christ suffered "once for all." The merits of His suffering allows Him "ever liveth to make intercession for us." What do you believe this means?
Read the rest of the thread. Mediation continues all the time. But there is no further need to keep OFFERING blood. He appeared in God's presence in our behalf, entering in once for all by means of His blood. There is not a separate application of blood for this event or that event. Hebrews expressly rules that out. There were not many sacrifices or many offerings of himself. He died once. He entered once. He completed that work. Now the finished work of the sacrifice and the presentation of the blood is the means of his continuing mediation.
Do you agree that each sacrifice in the OT symbolised one Great Sacrifice? Each splash of shed blood symbolised the one same shed blood of Christ? Agreed? The blood used for justification, the blood used for DOA, were all symbolic of the same blood. Do you see where I'm going with this.
The same, once and for all, shed blood of Christ, is the basis on which different phases of atonement were prefigured in the Sanctuary services. "nor was it that He would offer Himself often" - each sacrifice offered prefigured the one same sacrifice. That is why the blood of goats and calves can never take away sins.
It would be hard to argue that I am the one arguing against one sacrifice, once for all. You seem to be the one arguing from the type to the fulfillment rather than taking what the fulfillment says in Hebrews. There is one--not many, as in the type.
There was one sacrifice which I have pointed out many times. There was one blood. There was one ministration of the blood at the ascension. It is a completed work. The portion of the Day of Atonement service that we say relates to the IJ--the application of blood--already happened. Therefore there is no reason to look for the fulfillment of the application of blood in 1844 when Hebrews said it already happened.
I don't think you see the Day of Atonement as a seperate, distinct service apart from the daily services anymore? Do you still agree that judgment is part of the atonement process? Do you still agree that the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on the veil/seat(type) pre-figured the merits of Christ's sacrifice blotting out our sins from the books, and meeting the requirements of the Law?
You are missing the point.
Hebrews says that application of blood already happened. It says that by it Jesus brought redemption, and put away sin, and made PURIFICATION of sins. It uses Day of Atonement language--which every one of our scholars seems to admit--even Davidson.
It was a past event from the author's time. No amount of wriggling on your part changes that. Why would I take anyone else's interpretation over that of the Scriptures? According to Hebrews the meaning was cleansing of sin--just as it was in the earthly type.
So....did the application of the blood--which was the type--happen in 1844 or at Jesus' ascension?
The fact still remains that the sins of Israel were not fully "atoned" for at the altar. They were forgiven. It is only in Yom Kippur we find Jehovah stating that Israel will be "clean" from all their sins.
And?
Hebrews says the blood was already applied. It also says He made purification for sins, brought in redemption, etc. Why would you ignore what the Bible says so that you can hold on to a MISAPPLICATION of the type?
The type NEVER had books. The type did have blood and cleansing.And that blood application and cleansing was said to be done.
No problem. But if you intend to show that this was not related to the rest of the verses then you need to make your own counter-proposal of what the grammar means, including the tenses, etc.
The whole section is describing a completed event.
I'm still unclear what you mean when you say "application" of blood.
Jesus entered by means of His own blood into God's presence. It is in parallel with the earthly priest entering in by means of the animal blood into God's presence.
Both offered the sacrifice. But the earthly did not take away sins. Jesus' sacrifice did.
Correct, there is no mention of books in Leviticus. But, Daniel, Malachi, Psalms, and elsewhere explicitly refer to the heavenly records. The Scriptures form a unified whole. I believe this part of the Sanctuary is solid.
But what does that have to do with the type of the Day of Atonement? I could say other parts of the Bible mention donkeys. Does that make them part of the Day of Atonement type?
The type is what it is. The type is taking the blood into God's presence and offering it. The fulfillment is described in Hebrews as Jesus entering into God's presence by means of His blood in our behalf. It is a far more direct application of the imagery in Leviticus than the Adventist version.
There are no books mentioned in Lev. 16. We have come up with books to explain what we think the type means. But the type is already explained in Hebrews. And it has nothing to do with books.
How have we explained the type? I just want to get clear what it is you disagree with before we move on.
Jon
We apply the type by describing "The work of the investigative judgment and the blotting out of sins" from the books. (Quotation from GC).
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
